The Two-State Delusion
I am republishing this as a detailed comment on Bernard Avishai's article of June 14, "Total Settlement Freeze? No, a Border."
Anyone who regularly reads the comments to MJ. Rosenberg's numerous posts on Israel and Palestine knows that I am (or at least have become) extremely skeptical about the feasibility of the so-called two-state solution as a way to end the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. There was a time when I was not quite so skeptical, when I believed that, while no solution was perfect, the creation of two states was an achievable objective and also a reasonably fair and effective way to resolve the problem
Over the past five or six years, however, as I have read more about the conflict, listened more carefully to the arguments of both Jews and Arabs, and observed events on the ground, I have slowly but inexorably come to the conclusion not only that the two-state solution is unworkable, but--much more important--that all attempts to advocate for or negotiate a two-state solution must increasingly be judged irresponsible (if not willfully pernincious), because all they can do is distract from and delay the work required to produce a feasible solution.
Conditions for Success
Before explaining why the two-state solution is unworkable, let me identify what would be necessary for a solution to succeed. For a solution to this conflict to be feasible, I believe it must meet two conditions:
- First, the solution must be acceptable and reasonably satisfactory to both parties. If not, no agreement will ever be signed.
- Second, the solution must be able to endure. A signed agreement is only the first step in achieving a solution. What happens after the agreement is signed is far more important. If the situation created by the agreement is unstable and unsustainable, the agreement will collapse and the conflict resume.
Some may object to my first condition, saying that mutual agreement is not necessary because a solution can be imposed on one of the parties by the other or on both of the parties by the international community. The problem, though, with imposed solutions is that they tend to result in unstable situations post-imposition. The risk, therefore, is that by ignoring the first condition and imposing a solution, the second condition will not be met. And the second condition is really the most important, because a solution that cannot endure is not really a solution.
The Features of a Two-State Solution as Currently Conceived
So what does this mean for the two-state solution? Most supporters of the two-state solution argue that its features have been known for a long time and that the primary reason for the inability to reach agreement is merely a kind of stubbornness among the two parties or the result of poor leadership on one or both sides or in the international community. I'd argue that, in fact, the reason the two-state solution has not been agreed upon despite decades of discussion and negotiation is that:
- Its features are actually not known because the details of the solution have never been fully explored, and these details must be known before before any agreement can be had.
- If its features were known (i.e., the details were fully explored), the solution would be neither mutually desirable nor capable of producing a lasting, peaceful arrangement, and would therefore fail to be agreed upon or, if agreed upon, collapse soon after the solution was implemented.
I might even go further and argue that the constant attempt to put off "final status negotiations" reflects a tacit understanding among negotiators that a two-state solution is impossible and that the negotiations will collapse as soon as the final status issues are raised. Two-state negotiations, in one form or another, have gone on for decades without reaching any agreement. Furthermore, whenever final status details are discussed, the negotiations become tense and, eventually, collapse. Empirically, this should be strong enough evidence to convince any rational person that there is something significantly wrong with the two-state proposal. Yet, discussions continue and the conventional wisdom remains that a two-state solution is both desirable and acheivable.
So let's look more closely at the outlines of the supposed solution. Most say that the three basic features of the solution are:
- Borders approximating the 1967 green line
- East Jerusalem the capital of the Palestinian state
- Compensation (but no or very limited return) for Palestinian refugees
The problem with this vision is that the first two featuers are no longer possible to implement because of Israeli settlements and the third, while possible, is likely to be agreed upon by the Palestinians only if they receive much more than they are likely to be offered.
Let's look at each of these features of the imagined two-state solution individually and explore the details more closely.
Borders
First, borders. To really understand this issue, you should review this map and also these population statistics. If you look at the map, you'll see the geographic extent of Israeli settlement. Especially significant are the large settlement blocks near Jerusalem, near Qalqiliya, and near Hebron, but there are settlements large and small scattered throughout the West Bank. If you look at the population statistics you will also see that the number of people living in these settlements is approaching 300,000. Returning to the 1967 borders (or even anything close to them) will require the removal of more than a quarter of a million people from hundreds of locations across the West Bank. This is simply impossible for Israel to do. Not only will the effort create something like a civil war in Israel, removing and resettling 300,000 unwilling people is a daunting and politically disasterous task, which no Israeli leader would ever agree to undertake.
In fact, the impossibility of returning to 1967 borders is now widely accepted. This is why all proposals for two-state solutions now suggest that land will need to be swapped. The problem here is which pieces of land are to be swapped? To understand the complexity of this problem, one must know something of the geography of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. One could divide the land in of this region into four categories. Category A is the fertile land along the coastal plain, in the Jezreel Valley, around Gallilee, and parts of the northern Jordan River valley. This is the most valuable land, most suitable for growing crops. Most if it is in Israel. (In fact, one reason the Arabs reacted so badly to the original UN partition is that nearly all of this best land was given to the Jewish state.) Category B land is also suitable for agriculture, but it's drier or more mountainous and therefore has more limited capacity. Much of this category B land is found in the western portion of the West Bank and in some areas of Israel. Category C land is near desert. This makes up much of the Eastern portion of the West Bank and much of the southern part of Israel north of the Negev desert. Finally, there is Category D land, which is true desert. This is found in the Negev and the southeastern part of the West Bank.
If one looks at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, one sees that most of the settlements are on category B land. Some smaller (in population, but not area) settlements have been built in the bit of category A land in the Jordan River valley north of the Dead Sea (land which Israel says it wants to keep as a "security zone" even after a Palestinian state is established). So most of the land swap provisions in two-state solutions require the Palestinians to relinquish category A or B land. Typically, what they get in return is category C or D land. After all, it is C and D land that is sparsely populated and hence open in Israel. So most of the land swaps not only fragment the West Bank, they reduce the overall quality of the land in the Palestinian state.
This has significant consequences. The population of the West Bank and Gaza is about 4 million. Those 4 million need to eat. If the agricultural land is poor, growing enough food will be challenging. In most proposed versions of the two-state solution, Israel retains control of most of the water. So irrigation will be difficult for the Palestinians. And the soil is relatively poor in many places anyway. So Palestine will need to import much of its food.
This means Palestine will need to have an industrial base to generate the wealth to buy food. But Palestine now has little industry. And there is no reason to see why the West Bank and Gaza will attract much industry. Palestine is not like Singapore or Hong Kong--city states with important ports that were significant to the world trade of the British Empire and that therefore were able to develop viable economies despite a paucity of good land. Palestine currently has no deep water port (there have been plans proposed to create a deep water port in Gaza, but that's a major undertaking); and it has none of the business and other infrastructure that a Singapore or Hong Kong had because of their historical economic importance. Palestine would be building its industrial base from the ground up, facing significant competition from richer or more established economies, and with few natural advantages to build on. The prospects--realistically--are not promising. The likely scenario for a Palestinian state is actually continued poverty for many, many years, with at best a marginal agricultural base and a weak industrial base. This doesn't bode well for the long-term stability of the Palestinian state.
Before we move on to East Jerusalem, let's return to the issue of fragmentation of the West Bank. I mentioned in passing that the settlements kept by Israel would leave the West Bank fragmented. In fact, those settlements would likely bisect the West Bank into separate northern and southern sections. And this is a "best case" scenario: some proposals would actually divide the West Bank into three or four or even five pieces. Fragmentation creates significant challenges. Already, the problem of connecting Gaza with the West Bank is thorny. Now multiply this problem several times over. If the Palestinian state is so fragmented, Palestinians will continue to have to pass through Israeli checkpoints to move within their state. This will be a huge economic inconvenience that will discourage businesses from locating in Palestine and, maybe more significantly, will mean constant tension--and potential violence--between Palestinians and Israelis. Fragmentation makes a Palestinian state highly unstable and likely unsustainable.
To conclude the discussion of borders, we must acknowledge that the 1967 border is no longer possible and that the actual possible borders are really nothing at all like the 1967 border. Worse, the borders that actually are possible result in a fragmented and economically disadvantaged Palestinian state. This state will not be stable and is unlikely ever to be a peaceful neighbor to Israel, which means repeated Israeli blockades, incursions, or even re-occupation should such a state ever be created.
East Jerusalem
The Israelis have been creating large Jewish neighborhoods within East Jerusalem. The populations of these neighborhoods now approach a quarter million. Furthermore, East Jerusalem is almost completely surrounded by Jewish settlments. It will be detached completely from all other parts of Palestine should a two-state solution be agreed upon. It will therefore make a very poor capital for the Palestinian state. In fact, making East Jerusalem a practical capital of the Palestinian state seems impossible without vast transfers of the Jewish population living in and around it and the dismantling of at least some of the settlements that separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. I don't see how any of these actions will ever occur. Because of this, East Jerusalem is no longer available to be the capital of Palestine so this feature of the two-state solution is as completely unreaslistic as a state on borders approaching the 1967 borders.
Refugees
Israel insists that either no or very few refugees will be allowed to return to Israel. Already the population of the West Bank and Gaza is 4 million. Palestinian refugees living outside the West Bank and Gaza (in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) could potentially increase the population by another 1 to 2 million. This creates a very crowded Palestinian state. As we explained above, there is neither an agricultural or industrial base to support this many people. The crowded, impoverished conditions of Palestine will tend to make the state unstable and will also likely result in conflicts with neighboring Israel. This kind of weak state will almost certainly need to be attacked or re-occupied at some point by Israel, which means a quick return to today's status quo.
Of course, the Palestinians are very reluctant to agree to give up what they view as their right to return to Israel for reasons of justice and emotion. But were they ever willling to compromise on this point, they would still need something in return to help avoid the kind of economic and political disaster that would result from overcrowding and poverty. No proposals for compensation that I have seen even come close to addressing this economic need. And the border problem--which further reduces the agricultural capacity of Palestine--only exacerbates the difficulties. The refugee problem--oft mentioned, but rarely seriously addressed--is a major sticking point. And if solved in the way most of the proponents of the two-state solution assume it would be solved, it will only increase the economic instability of Palestine.
Maintaining the Illusion
For all the reasons outlined above (and many others too such as, water rights, control of airspace, or the nature of the Palestinian military), a two-state solution seems completely impossible.
Two questions then arise:
- First, why do we continue to cling to the illusion that a two-state solution can be effected?
- Second, what alternatives are possible if we ever relieve ourselves of the two-state delusion?
The primary answer to the first question is that the two-state solution superficially seems like a good one and most people (including a large number of Israeli Jews and Palestinians as well as much of the international community) don't carefuly examine the details. So most people continue to accept its feasibility as fact. A second answer is that the illusion of the possibility of a two-state solution is attractive to two groups within the Jewish community. Liberal Jews in Israel and elsewhere who want to preserve a Jewish state find it emotionally attractive to think that a solution other than a bi-national state or outright ethnic cleansing is possible. On the other hand, certain conservative Israeli Jews may have come to realize that pretending to be interested in the impossible two-state solution provides useful cover for a more cynical strategy of delaying a solution indefinitely in the hopes of wearing down the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, the supporters of a two-state solution seem to be hoping that they can garner support among the international community and use this support to obtain more from the Israelis than the Israelis would like to give them (a highly unlikely possibility). And of course, there are corrupt and/or ineffectual Palestinian politicians who depend on the West for money and power and who must publically back the two state solution to continue to be supported by their Western sponsors. So for all these reasons, the two-state delusion continues to remain attractive (or at least useful) to many minds while, in fact, being effective only at delaying and even interfering with progress toward any real solution.
Alternatives
There are really only two alternatives to the impossible two-state solution. One is some kind of bi-national state or federation that re-integrates the two populations into one economic community. This solution would solve all the problems of borders and would make the transfer of populations unnecessary since everyone in both groups would be free to live and work where they like within the region (it negates both the refugee problem and the settler problem). Better yet, a bi-national or federated solution would allow the Palestinians to once again find jobs and work in Israel, creating economic hope for those impoverished populations and helping to create a more stable and peaceful Palestinian community.
The other alternative is removing the Palestinians to some other part of the world. This of course is generally unacceptable. However, an argument can be made that if the two-state solution is unworkable and no one will agree to a bi-national or federated solution, then ethnic cleansing is the only answer. If this is the case, one has to ask whether continuing to argue for a two-state solution is in any way defensible. All it does is delay justice (the bi-national state or federation) or prolong the suffering of the Palestinians while still condeming them to the ultimate injustice of ethnic cleansing.
For all these reasons people who truly believe in the sanctity of human rights need to begin to challenge the two-state delusion and create a new and more realistic path toward justice and peace. I recommend some kind of bi-national state or federation. I'll leave it to others to argue for ethnic cleansing or for continuing to maintain the two-state delusion for another 60 years, while the injustice and suffering continue unabated.
You've laid your position out very, very well, Purple State. Thanks for your hard work. Maybe they should include you in the negotiations. I feel instinctively that you're right.
May 10, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
ethnic cleansing is a violent crime, not an alternative, thereby undermining your attempt to appear rational and uproots your entire analysis
who are you really?
June 15, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ethnic cleansing is not an alternative that any moral person would choose, but it does exist and has even been suggested by extremists on both sides of this issue. I think it's crucially important to recognize that ethnic cleansing is a possibility in order to ensure that we do everything we can to prevent it. Ignoring or denying the fact that it exists as an alternative (and one some extremists actually desire) is foolish. There are extremist Palestinians who really would like to push all the Jews into the sea. And there are extremists in Israel who would like to transfer all Arabs out of Israel and "Judea and Samaria." Whether either of these things is possible is doubtful, but ethnic cleansing has been attempted in many other conflicts through human history. Ignoring its possibility doesn't seem wise, particularly given the intensity of emotion on both sides of the conflict.
June 16, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should also add that one of my points is that, if a two-state solution is truly impossible, continuing to lobby for it may make a bad result like ethnic cleansing more likely. In fact, the growing intensity of the hatred on both sides as two-state negotiations stumble and bumble along without end certainly should raise questions about the wisdom of continuing on this path.
June 16, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you write: "then ethnic cleansing is the only answer", are you referring to Arabs or Jews? I find that for some reason, almost no one calls removal of Jews from places they personally have lived in for a long time, like in Gaza 30 years, after 1967 or their predecessors have before 1948, for centuries like in Hebron, Shchem (Nablus), etc. or Gush Etzion, Bet HaAravah, Neveh Yaakov, etc. for only a few decades. And why do we sort of forget that Arabs started the policy of ethnic cleansing at Tel Hai in 1920, or at Jaffa in 1921, followed by attacks on Hadera and Petah Tiqva, no to mention the more obvious Hebron in 1929?
May 10, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
YMedad,
I think the more likely scenario is that the Israelis will remove the Palestinians, since the Palestinians are by far the weaker party. That said, I think neither group is inherently better or worse than the other and it's clear that many among the Palestinians would gladly remove the Jews if they could.
But there's too much passing blame back and forth. It's like children bickering. The only way forward is to figure out a workable solution that is as fair as possible to all the individuals, Jewish, Arab and other, living in the area.
May 10, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
One question that will probably arise, but that I did not address in my original post is the feasibility of a single-state or federated solution.
First, one has to recognize that the advantages of a single state solution are many:
The only serious obstacles to a bi-national solution are attitudinal:
Now, I don't want to diminish the significance of these two obstacles. Attitudes and ideology can sometimes be the highest of barriers. But they're also ones that people can both control and change. We've seen these changes in the United States, South Africa and many other places around the world. There's no reason to believe that, without work, attitudes in Israel and Palestine can change too.
May 10, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if your solution makes sense, given the conditions on the ground. On the other hand, the Mideast stopped making sense a long time ago. If Israel and the Palestinians don't like your suggestion, maybe they could try mine: The U.S. not just annexes Israel/Palestine but grants statehood (at least two states, maybe four - let's make things as whacked as possible). Let both sides deal with the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. Let people from Likud, Hamas, etc. show up in Washington for all the, uh, I guess we can't call it pork but whatever. Let everyone fight over gay marriage, gun control, prayer in school or if Obama really is a citizen or Cheney should be hauled off to The Hauge. In other words, let both sides be swallowed up in America's overwrought, overdone, silly, shallow and disturbingly wonderful political/cultural/religious/economic life. Maybe if they're swamped by trivial stuff, they can forget about "important" stuff and focus on what really matters.
Just my delusional two cents worth.
May 10, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The argument for a single state was made recently in a Times op-ed by none other than Muammar Qaddafi. That it was not taken seriously probably had as much to do with the author than with any political or geographical reality.
If there is to be any chance of resolution in this lifetime or the next, all options need to be on the table. Thanks for doing this.
May 10, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let’s make the following assumptions:
a) No removal of any of the two people will take place;
b) Both ethnic group will (eventually) be peaceful and civil to each other;
c) Each ethnic group would want to be able to govern itself and control its own destiny;
Without these two assumptions this discussion is mute, I don’t think any of the two groups would agree to be “removed” and probably would not do it peacefully. And secondly, if these two groups would not be peaceful and civil to one another this whole discussion is useless. And lastly, I think both parties are very much looking for a solution that would allow them to preserve their identity and self governance.
So now making all these assumptions let’s imagine a two state solution (borders, capitals, etc. are not as important for the reasons to be obvious further in this post) where these two states while each with it’s own government and self determination will be integrated (as they de facto already are) into a single economical environment and infrastructure. In such a situation both people can choose to live on either side of the border complying with local laws (laws on both sides should be fair to both people) Palestinians can participate in the Israeli economy and vice versa, Israelis can invest into Palestinian’s state economy and all Israeli settlements can still continue to exist with Palestinian state guarantying their security. On the Israel’s side all Israeli Arabs can become citizens of the new Palestinian state as most of them identify with Palestinians rather than with Israeli Jews.
The actual borders become less important as “open borders” would be one of the major goals of this solution.
As for the capital of the Palestinian state and issue of refugees, these are emotional issues more than real ones. Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs have many arguments on both sides and probably will not find a compromise on these issues.
So the bottom line is, will both Jews and Arabs live in peace, and build an integrated economy of both States, or will Jews and Arabs continue fighting and continue mourning their victims of the wars and terror on both sides?????
May 11, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, this is similar to the federation idea, which is a solution that is in-between a two-state and a one-state solution and which I think may be the best course for peace. It makes it possible to maintain a Jewish state (your concern in your post below) but allows the economic integration and integration of populations necessary to make the solution succeed.
Your point in the post about a one-state solution being a code word for destroying Israel. I guess if one believes that Israel must be a Jewish state (rather than a pluralistic state) and that the Arabs (if they become a majority) will ethnically cleanse Jews then yes. But I think this requires a rather narrow and cynical view of both the Jews and Arabs.
In my mind a mature Israel will always retain a strong Jewish (or as Bernard Avishai likes to call it, Hebrew) culture. But it will learn to accept its Arab heritage equally with its Jewish and not fear a mingling of the two cultures into something new and vibrant. While the creation of Israel and the dispossession it caused has made Arabs hostile to Jews, this wasn't always the case and, honestly, the 1.6 million Israeli Arab citizens have demonstrated the ability among Arabs to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors.
If you cling to believing ethnic divisions are permanent, I guess you can only believe that a one-state solution will destroy Israel (much as the Jewish state has already destroyed much of the Arab culture that proceeded it on the same land). But I don't believe that people are necessarily so completely dominated by their ethnicity. Maybe it's my own mixed ethnic background or the fact that my extended family happily includes Christians, Jews, and Muslims or the fact that the US has generally been able to overcome ethnic divisions, even if at times the integration hasn't been perfect.
One can cling to the past and be paralyzed or one can look to a better future and work to make it happen. It really comes down to will.
May 11, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A single state solution is a code word for destroying Israel. Everybody knows that birth rate among Arabs is much higher than among Jews, so it is just a matter of time until Arabs will have a majority and Jews will be pushed out or thrown out of the "Promised Land" That is why a single state solution is not much of a solution and would not be accepted by the Jewish side.
May 11, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, I share your skepticism about the two-state solution and its ever-diminishing prospects for success. But the one-state solution is even less realistic.
Getting half a million Jews to leave the West Bank, and emigrate back to the other side of the Green Line is a very tall order indeed. It probably can't happen.
But getting a majority of Israelis to give up the dream of a Jewish state is even less likely. They are Zionists. They are the children and grandchildren of Zionists. To consolidate and live in a Jewish state is why they are there. It's what their ancestors bled and died for.
Yes, these are just "attitudes". But they are deeply entrenched attitudes, attitudes that are fundamental to the identity of most Israelis, and to their conception of the very purpose of Israel. They would regard the death of the Jewish state as the death of Israel, a sort of "existential holocaust".
You neglected to mention the South African option: Palestinians will be ceded some fragmented and diminished portion of the West Bank: essentially what they have now plus land recovered from a few dismantled "outposts". They will be forbidden from forming an actual state with actual sovereignty, but they will be allowed to form something that they can call a state.
It seems unlikely that the Palestinians can ever be made to accept such an odious outcome. But what is shaping up now in Washington, at least in some quarters, is an effort to force them do so. The effort involves cutting a deal with Syria to bring them over to the western camp like Jordan and Egypt. The next step is to "take care" of Iran in some as yet to be specified way, weakening or defeating Hizbollah in the process, and to make a deal with Netanyahu to accept the Bantustania is exchange for whacking Iran.
The overall idea is to eliminate the Palestinians' last few remaining friends, the only ones who are still willing to fight for them. Their Arab cousins can then make them see the fatal writing on the wall, and prevail upon them to accept the crumbs being offered, or face further losses and certain ultimate defeat.
May 11, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet you love the "reservation" concept for Native Americans, too.
June 14, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
An Egyptian in Dearborn said it best about the Arab attitude towards this conflict: he said that they were willing to fight to the last Egyptian.
The Arabs have done far less for Palestine than the diaspora has done for Israel.
June 14, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
An Egyptian in Dearborn said it best about the Arab attitude towards this conflict: he said that they were willing to fight to the last Egyptian.
The Arabs have done far less for Palestine than the diaspora has done for Israel.
For the most part the 'friends' of the Palestinians have just kept pushing them into a meat grinder.
It as though the South in the Civil War had been supplied by France just enough to keep fighting but never enough to win. Decades and Decades of death and disaster. Defeat was a far better option for the South.
As for Zionists what do you say about the religious theocracy that is Saudi Arabia? Is aspiring to a nation in which their religion is predominant and safe worse for Jews than for those of any other religion? No other major religion lacks such a state.
June 14, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reccomended for thoughtfulness, insight and erudition, although I disagree completely. Hopefully I'll have the time to return later to say why.
May 11, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks AG and I look forward to hearing your comments (they are always thoughtful, even when we disagree). Of course, if you don't get time to respond here, you'll certainly have a chance at some point in the future, since these discussions on TPMCafe seem certain to continue endlessly :-)
May 12, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. Golda Meir June 1969
To the greatest extent the Palestinians can look to the greed and arrogance (and the stupidity) of the Hashemite monarchy as the source of their problems.
The two state (Israel and Palestine) solution won't work, but a reintegration into Jordan of such parts of the West Bank and Gaza that can be held/acquired seems the best bet for stability. Formerly favored tribal Jordanians may not be altogether pleased, but that can't be helped.
The Hashemites, who may not survive in the long term, have a debt to pay, and it's time they did so.
May 11, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
reintegration into Jordan of such parts of the West Bank and Gaza that can be held/acquired seems the best bet for stability
That's a very compelling argument as to way down the road. I wouldn't be surprised if the current Iran game players are keeping it in mind.
Might as well bring up the raison d'etre for many of the small Gulf States invented not that long ago, many of who happen to require non-Arab immigrant labor to keep their societies working as they are accustomed to, labor that doesn't get the same rights as citizens. And then there's that peak oil thingie looming aways down the road where one is then left with desert land--which takes one back to one of Purple State's point about a need for people living in such lands to develop industries. (And no, indoor ski slopes aren't going to do it.)
May 11, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just ordered this book by David Fromkin on the carving up of the Ottoman Empire and the making of all these new nation states after WWI (shoulda used Powell's but oh well). Has anyone read it? It's over 20 years old but I ordered a reissue with a new afterforward coming out in July.
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-20th-Anniversary/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242073097&sr=8-5
May 11, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.
Such a shame the Turks chose the losing side.
Mr. Eugenides, the Smyrna merchant
Unshaven, with a pocket full of currants
C.i.f. London: documents at sight,
Asked me in demotic French
To luncheon at the Cannon Street Hotel
Followed by a weekend at the Metropole.
May 11, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You inspired me to do a bit of updating myself on topic.
It appears it's taken about 80 years
for Wilfrid Owen's cry
...you would not tell...
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
to just start sinking in on those particular nationalist narratives:
Smyrna Burns No More: ....Rather than the confirmation of how mutually exclusive the Greeks and Turks were, it figures now more as the sad outcome of things gone wrong.
What also comes to mind is thhis Brad DeLong statement which I was so struck by that I saved it:
To fight one set of wars at the start of the twentieth century to unify Serbs and Croats and to fight another set of wars at the end to dissolve the union and "ethnically cleanse" the region seems among the sickest of the jokes History plays on human populations.
But I find that the more that goes into my noggin about the 1914-1918 general world holocaust, the less I can take looking at The Wasteland without breaking into tears. I still just can't imagine what it must have been like to be an aware adult survivor in the early 20's, with most of a whole generation of young strong men killed, maimed, gone crazy, turned into revolutionaries, or turned into a purple corpse shortly after complaining about a sore throat....talk about "change"....
May 12, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read it Bruce, though I've read some other, more general histories of the Middle East that address that period. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts after you read it. It seems to me that the British did a pretty bad job of carving up the Middle East (and installing governments) after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But maybe doing a good job wasn't possible anyway . . .
May 12, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Skimmed it and too long ago and in a different state of mind (where I had other interests in mind) to say anything useful. But I sure do look forward to how your reading it might inform your commentary here. Really. (Don't take it wrong: not saying I'm expecting a book report, saying you might bring up a point from it in context of something else.)
May 12, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. re: shoulda used Powell's but oh well
Next time, go here instead:
http://www.bookfinder.com/
All the used/rare book dealers do.
May 12, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks AA. Now I have to do a book report, having been requested to do so by both you and Purple. The copy I ordered is on "preorder", because there's a new afterforward or something, and it's not due to be sent out to me until July 21. So I have a reprieve until then! :)
I already pledged to Bar Kafka to read and report on Avishai's Hebrew Republic, which I am taking with me on vacation next week. I hope I get the strength to do that because I'm sure it will be an interesting read from a regular contributor and could potentially generate some more interesting discussion related to Purple's theme here.
By the way, I've been following your India-Pakistan partition thread now and then, which motivated me to look for some summer reading about that story. I chose this book (no report promised:)):
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Partition-Making-India-Pakistan/dp/0300143338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242160680&sr=8-1
May 12, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may have tempted me to put some more paper on my towering stacks with your link; the first review: shows why the repercussions of Partition resound even now, some sixty years later. The book is an intelligent and timely analysis of Partition, the haste and recklessness with which it was completed, and the damaging legacy left in its wake.
May 12, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether it was possible to stay out of WWI (Germans are so abominably stupid).
But had we France and Britain might have been too crippled in the end to assert any control in the Middle East, and the Arabs would have been left to their own devices.
May 12, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, you may be right that it is an unrealistic solution, but it could still be the best. If we only push for what is realistic, we set our standards too low. What is realistic? The status quo.
May 11, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The status quo is unsustainable. But realism is required to avoid the excesses of fanatical Jacobin drives to actualize ideal, abstract conceptions of justice or perfection that cannot be achieved in the actual world without hideous costs. Peace and the preservation of life are positive values in themselves that need to be weighed against the demands of justice. What kind of "solution" would it be if the cost of a one-state solution is hundreds of thousands of dead resulting from a genocidal war between Israelis and Palestinians, or a fratricidal civil way among Israelis, or even millions of dead in a broad regional war? Ending the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is an exercise in conflict resolution.
May 11, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israelistine?
Palisrael?
May 11, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice work Purple and recommended, from someone who still remains convinced that the two-state concept is the only viable one. I think, from an American perspective, President Obama is entitled to the opportunity to oversee negotiations between the parties in a promised fresh and new manner. And there are incentives on both sides to resolve this festering dispute.
May 11, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Refreshingly thoughtful analysis on a conflict that rarely sees it. Even so, I hesitate to share your conclusions because....
"First, the solution must be acceptable and reasonably satisfactory to both parties. If not, no agreement will ever be signed."
---
I agree with this. But approximately 0% of Israeli Jews are ready to agree to a bi-national state. Even the Israeli Left is not into it. Part of it is fear, trauma in the collective consciousness and entrenched distrust of being a vulnerable minority, especially given the Jewish history of being abused and being in a part of the world where "mixed" nations have suffered from civil war. Also, for many Israeli Jews, the idea of a sovereign, independent Jewish state has itself become as deeply emotional as holy sites and Jerusalem is to each side. Imagine for example if Kurdistan were completely independent trying to persuade them to reunite with Iraq. It's hard enough keeping Texas in America. Could, as you wonder, these attitudes in Israeli Jews change? Not easily or any time soon. Perhaps if Jewish and Arab secularization accelerated at breakneck speed and the culture evolved to the tolerance level of a modern American university you could get there, but I feel this would probably take a few decades if not more and we don't even remotely have the luxury of that time. (One irony is that the violence aimed at Israeli civilians by the most entrenched rejectionists of a Jewish state actually entrench Israelis resistance to a single state.)
My hunch is it would be much, much easier to get Israel to rally behind a fair 2-state deal. (What is your take on the Geneva Initiative incidentally?) The "threat" of a mixed state has motivated even many Israeli Rightists like Ariel Sharon to greater interest in a 2-state deal. I do think the threat of a rocking Israel-American relations could similarly motivate a fairer 2 state deal on borders, land swaps, refugee compensation, etc.
May 11, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had to work late tonight, and don't have time to respond to the many interesting and thoughtful comments. I hope to get to them tomorrow. Would like to explore a few issues raised:
May 11, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Jordanian solution is one strongly resisted by both Palestinians and Jordanians and one which I'm not sure fully works economically.
1. It's "resisted" by those who would see their power diminished -- principally, politicians of all persuasions on both sides of the Jordan River. Ordinary Palestinians want a better life for their children and the security which comes from being citizens of a recognized state. Ordinary Jordanians will do what they're told to do -- and in this case, especially, because 3 million Palestinians live east of the Jordan and are fellow citizens, already.
2. Economically, a Jordan with an included West Bank works just as well as one without it.
May 12, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Integrating 4 million impoverished Palestinians into the Jordanian economy would be more difficult than integrating them into the much stronger and larger Israeli economy. (I'm looking at this purely economically, ignoring the other challenges of integration that have nothing to do with economics and may make integration into Israel harder than integration into Jordan.) Jordan already has integrated several million Palestinians and is also now dealing with the challenge of integrating Iraqi refugees (there are about 700,000 of them in Jordan now). Jordan has a reasonably healthy economy, but it's not large enough to absorb this kind of population.
There's also a justice issue here. The Palestinian refugees were driven out of Israel's coastal plain, not out of the Jordanian desert. They seek to have access to that fertile plain again. They won't (and don't) see integration with Jordan as a just solution. And it's hard to see how Jordan sacrifices its own stability (or how King Abdullah relinquishes his throne) to allow Israel to wipe it's hand of its Palestinian refugees. These kinds of objections can, of course, be overcome--but they will make getting a deal signed very difficult (every bit as difficult as getting a deal signed for a two-state or one-state solution with Israel).
I will say, however, if a healthy and stable Palestinian state can be created and that state and Jordan want to federate in some way, doing so might make a great deal of sense.
May 12, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
can this emotional need or desire of one group supersede the basic human rights of another group living among them?
Tribalism sucks.
We should never empower it, coddle it, or respect it.
Stamp it out like the disease it is.
One semite, One vote. One state, no Yahwists
May 12, 2009 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again I find myself wishing TPM made it possible to recommend comments.
June 14, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If indeed the Jews have some unyieldingly strong emotional need or desire to keep their state exclusively Jewish--as understandable as this may be given the history of the Jews--can this emotional need or desire of one group supersede the basic human rights of another group living among them?
Probably not. But this is a moral argument, and I thought the debate was about which solutions are more feasible or workable, and which can satisfy the conditions for success you laid out.
I don't know if I would count on the vaunted progressivism of Jews leading to an anti-Zionist evolution in thinking. Israel's politics have been trending in more conservative and ultranationalist direction. The country has been experiencing a brain drain. Meanwhile, many of the most recent immigrants were attracted to the country by the promise of land in the West Bank.
May 12, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This would mean exchanging Eliat....."
Eliat is integral to the ambitious plans for Israeli to acheive energy & water independence by way of multiple seabed pipelines from the Turkish port of Ceyhan to Ashkelon. To the point, the future plans also envision Israel as a broker for excess crude via a trans-Israel pipeline and the Eilat port is absolutely key to loading East-bound oil tankers.
No country would voluntarily give up the use of the sole port providing access to a body of water with such potential.
That practicality aside, I admire your efforts to address a "problem" that makes me throw up my hands and scowl at the whole damn mess.
May 12, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the point. Eliat is actually worth something. Israel doesn't seem to want to give up anything of value, but it wants to keep taking things of value (like East Jerusalem). This is one reason the two-state solution goes nowhere. The solution doesn't give the Palestinians anything more than what they already have (sort of) and typically it gives them even less. Why would they sign a deal like that? Peace can't be bought cheaply, no matter how much the Israelis try to do that. At some point, they've got to give the Palestinians a better deal--or just get rid of them by force. We keep talking about what Israel wants and what the Jews want. But fully half (maybe even more than half now) of the population of the area we are talking about is Palestinian. The Jews may be more powerful and dominant right now, but justice requires more equal sharing with the non-Jewish other half of the population. And even if justice doesn't matter to the Jewish state, peace does. And when 50% of your population gets a bum deal it won't be peaceful for long.
So rather than focus on the same failed solution, let's start putting some more radical ideas on the table. As I said, giving up Eliat is radical. But I'll also say if Israel offered that and the Palestinians refused, I'd question the Palestinians' sanity.
May 13, 2009 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I should add, that like any two-state solution, giving up Eliat is intensely difficult. One state is really much easier in every detail except the details of what goes on in people's heads. While every two-state solution comes with a host of both physical and mental obstacles, the one-state solution has very few physical obstacles and only two mental obstacles: the almost universal Jewish desire for a specifically Jewish state and the refusal of many Palestinians to accept Jews as co-inhabitants. It will take longer to convince people that one-state is good, but once people are convinced, its execution is comparatively easy. With a two-state solution, convincing people is marginally easier (though the practical difficulties make it nearly as hard because no mutually satisfactory solution is likely to be found), but the physcial challenges are daunting and likely to destroy whatever arrangement is reached before it gets fully off the ground.
May 13, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as giving up Eilat goes, in order to construct a viable solution, it's best to eliminate the unworkable, IMO. For Israel to relinquish that port isn't just "difficult", it's impossible.
However, I am biased as I see the plans for pipelines as a big plus for Israel in terms of national security and regional integration in addition to the economic benefits.
Water is one of components of the plan and given that access to potable supplies of the stuff is a huge source of conflict, elimination of that concern could yield far-reaching benefits for all.
It's a matter of removing stressors and excuses that provide rationales for continued appropriation of arable Palestian lands if the deserts can freely bloom by opening the spigots.
Would the most fanatical believers in Zionism be able to justify their claims to the OT in the face of sustainable development of areas formerly out-of-bounds due to the absence of aquifers?
One can dream.
May 13, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K compares this to South Africa. Indeed, the whites tried to force the blacks into Bantustans (crumbs). But it didn't work. Eventually, South Africa had to move toward multinationalism.
Which, in effect, meant black rule. South Africa is going the way of Zimbabwe and Israelis are smart to want to avoid that.
The only way that a one-state solution is feasible is if the Arabs are made to live as second-class citizens or as subjects. If they are given equal political rights and they comprise anything close to or above 50% of the population, you will get Lebanon all over again.
One-state is definitely no more realistic than two-state, unless you want to pretend that humn nature is politically correct.
June 14, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think i have the solution for Jews that are worried a federal state with two substates will lead to Jews being pushed out of Israel.
This solution in part involves embrasing voluntairy tribalism. Why not Make it so that inhabitants of this federal nation can only vote in one of the two parlements that rule the two substates? People can freely identify themselfs as either palastinian or Israeli(Jews woudnt do theirt are other "Tribes" like the Druze who live in Israel) and then they can vote for the parliament in the state Given to their tribe, offcouse this would also apply to state level taxation, but not for local (city)counsil elections. That way the Jewsish population need not worry about politically being moved aside by a majority of palastinians within Israel, and the palastinians need not worry about settlers messing with their political process, in regions where they have a majority. This also would make a palastiunian state ecenomically viable on its current land since palastinians could work and live in Israel and still pay their taxes and vote back "home".
Lets call this a federation with highly flexible borders.
May 12, 2009 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is one of the advantages of the federated solution. It allows economic integration, but preserves two states with some separation of citizenship, domestic law, and purpose. The Israel in this federation would remain a Jewish state. The Palestinian state would probably take on a more explicitly Arab personality, but Palestinians have also shown some willingness to embrace more pluralistic approaches to their state (Hamas, of course, tends to run in the other direction, toward Islamism, but the older tradition in Palestinian political thinking is more toward secularistic concepts of government).
May 12, 2009 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a third alternative, of course: That Israel end its Zionist foundation enterprise and re-establish itself as a true, open democracy. A modern state, if you will. To maintain itself as a "Jewish state" is to militantly sustain itself as an apartheid state; there is no legitimate contraposition to that reality.
Is the existence of Israel fundamental to the existence of the Jewish people? No. Jews live and flourish everywhere, with little or no persecution. They maintain their culture and identities in environments sometimes actively antagonistic toward faiths outside that of the dominant society - as in Muslim countries of the Middle East.
Policy must be predicated primarily on the "here and now" - not on historical narrative no matter how agrieved or triumphant. The future of the world is multicultural, whether we like it or not, and Israel freezes itself in time - a stubborn, violent anachronism - at the price of world peace. At some point, the world's patience will run out with this tiresome, dangerous predicament.
June 14, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Purple State, for your very thoughtful analysis of the problem, and your attention to detail in describing the obstacles to a two state solution, as well as the prospect for alternatives.
I won't try to add to the informative discussion already apparent here, except to ask a question:
To what extent would the difficulties of establishing a separate Palestinian state be ameliorated by appropriate development and implementation of water management practices (including those involving the Jordan River) that would render proposed Palestinian territory fertile enough to provide substantial sustenance to the new state?
June 14, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
To amplify my question, I am curious about the prospects for diversion of river water, sharing of access, irrigation, and desalination.
June 14, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, whatever can be done to make a Palestinian state more viable economically makes a two-state solution more possible. I can't claim to be an expert on water management and have no detailed knowledge of what it would take to make the Palestinian state more fertile. Certainly, though, if Israel controls all the water, the Palestinian state will be at Israel's mercy--and since water is a scarce resource in that region also likely a water-poor state since Israel will naturally place its water needs first, before Palestine's needs. An unbalanced situation like this, in which Israel controls all the water, therefore, must be avoided if a two-state solution is to be feasible. Of course, the possibility of such imbalance disappears completely if the two states become one . . . .
June 14, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me, Purple State, that it might be easier for Israelis and Palestinians to share a river than to share a nation. One must walk before one can run.
I expect that under international pressure, complemented by some offers of outside economic and technical assistance, both sides, but particularly Israel, may come to see it that way.
I believe you've made a convincing case that obstacles to a two state solution are daunting, but I'm not yet ready to concede they're insuperable.
June 15, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no right for a "Jewish" state. A state based on religion or genetics is a crime against humanity. It is, at its base, discriminatory and unsustainable.
My hope is for this Western experiment to continue to fail and to soon see its demise.
There is no peace with racism.
June 14, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
does the existence of ireland amount to racism? how about germany? they both have laws of return. you know that, right? I'm plenty on record arguing that israel should withdraw to the 67 borders. and israel needs to fundamentally change the status of its arab citizens. but your blithe condemnation of one people's desire to leave in a national state is really grotesque.
June 14, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you're not comparing Israel to Ireland and Germany? Last time I checked, Israel was imposed by imperial powers on an indigenous population, some of whom are still alive.
An utterly absurd comparison.
June 15, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Völkisch Germans and Zionist Jews.
Will no one rid us of these turbulent peoples.
June 15, 2009 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, Ireland's 'Law of Citizenship by Descent' requires proof a grandparent was born in Ireland. link This is along the lines of a typical citizenship requirement extended back one generation from parent to grandparent.
The Israeli Law of Return covers any Jew anywhere, regardless of where they their parents, their grandparents etc. were born, religious conversions OK if a parent or grandparent was a Jew.
Interestingly, Nazi Germany had similar laws examining descent from Jewish ancestors, and persons of some Jewish descent were called Mischling. 150,000 of these (part)Jews fought in the Wehrmacht with special state approval. Hilter's Jewish Soldiers, Rigg, Univ. Kansas 2002.
Many of these part-Jewish soldiers emigrated to Israel at the end of WWII. Rigg interviewed many of them and their life stories are interesting to say the least.
June 15, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
A state based on religion or genetics is a crime against humanity. It is, at its base, discriminatory and unsustainable.
In other words, the nation-state is a crime against humanity. In other words, countries as they have existed since the beginning of civilization is crime against humanity.
Ridiculous.
June 14, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the AP today:
And of course, since a disarmed Palestinian state will not be capable of suppressing any activities by groups that may want to take further armed action, he will have a sitting target for IDF cluster bombs and helicopter gunships.
And that is one of the real rubs. He wants a Palestinian state incapable of doing what it needs to in order to control internal factions and "bad actors", so that he can continue to attack and kill people with relative impunity.
June 14, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a fine presentation. Really. I guess my conclusion is yours if it is:
here are really only two alternatives to the impossible two-state solution. One is some kind of bi-national state or federation that re-integrates the two populations into one economic community. This solution would solve all the problems of borders and would make the transfer of populations unnecessary since everyone in both groups would be free to live and work where they like within the region (it negates both the refugee problem and the settler problem). Better yet, a bi-national or federated solution would allow the Palestinians to once again find jobs and work in Israel, creating economic hope for those impoverished populations and helping to create a more stable and peaceful Palestinian community."
I think we hear this two state solution all the time because in the ears of the average American, it has a nice compromise ring to it.
June 14, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's my conclusion, d-day--and, one way or another, I think it's how this whole issue will eventually be resolved because I don't think there's really any other choice. We've all just become so accustomed to hearing the two-state solution presented as the right and only solution that I'm afraid we've lost our ability to think outside that rather narrow little box.
June 14, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
One state solution is utterly unworkable.
As it is, political and judicial system of Israel is very biased against Arabs. Everybody who gave a second of thought about the issue is certain that were Jews dependent on Arab/Palestinian political and judicial decisions, they would not fare any better. Just check the recently discussed statistics on the number of building permits Arabs in Israel were obtaining over the years -- almost none.
If settlers' will truly become subject of an `Arab canton', expect demolition orders. Probably richly deserved, but then what?
Or, should the new unitary state be able to outlaw Nakba commemoration?
`Binational solution' somehow works in Northern Island. In the absence of English hegemon forcing two ethnic groups to cooperate, Belgium is in the state of constant crisis, even though there is no bloody strife, and the mutual grievances are laughably petty from Middle Eastern perspective.
June 15, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those who argue against a one-state solution have to grapple with the fact that in some ways Israel already is a bi-national Jewish-Arab state. One-fifth of its population is Arab. As piotr points out, Arabs aren't treated fully equally, but most still say they want to stay in Israel. There are two things to consider here:
So for all the talk of Israel being a Jewish state, the reality is that it is already somewhat bi-national and is likely to be forced to continue to move in that direction by the realities of its population.
June 15, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real problem goes back to post WWII when part of the post war agreement established the State of Israel smack dab in the middle of an all Arab community. More precisely a Jewish state smack dab in the middle of Islamic states. Of course nobody will ever admit to the fact that having done so was just as crazy as hell. And I'm not pro either way. It was just dumb to do that with the thousand year plus history of conflict between the two.
This is a political solution gone amok.
Politicians are just flat stupid. That is true the world over without regard to time and place.
June 15, 2009 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to add that this is what you get with compromise. A crappy 'solution' that serves no one. When you have two parties seeking incompatible goals the inevitable outcome ends with one or both being unhappy or miserable or pissed or violent. Every time. No exceptions. Done deal.
June 15, 2009 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd. Thanks, ps, for helping me question my views on this topic. I would love to see reactions from Bernard Avishai, MJ, and others who comment on I-P, in addition to the many excellent comments already contributed by cafe denizens in this thread.
June 15, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink